Brack Earl Daniels v. State of Texas--Appeal from 350th District Court of Taylor County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 11th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » Brack Earl Daniels v. State of Texas--Appeal from 350th District Court of Taylor County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 11-08-00008-CR

Case Date: 09/18/2008

Plaintiff: Brack Earl Daniels

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 350th District Court of Taylor County

Preview:Brack Earl Daniels v. State of Texas--Appeal from 350th District Court of Taylor County
Opinion filed September 18, 2008 Opinion filed September 18, 2008 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________ Nos. 11-08-00007-CR & 11-08-00008-CR __________ BRACK EARL DANIELS, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 7445D & 7981D MEMORANDUMOPINION

Brack Earl Daniels appeals from two judgments adjudicating his guilt. In Cause No. 11-08-00007-CR, appellant originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of marihuana in a drug free zone. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for four years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. In Cause No. 11-08-00008-CR, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of evading arrest. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years, and assessed a $750 fine. At the hearing on the State=s motions to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations. In each case, the trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and adjudicated his guilt. In Cause No. 11-08-00007-CR, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for six years and assessed a $1,000 fine. In Cause No. 11-08-00008-CR, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for twenty months in a state jail facility and assessed a $750 fine. We affirm. Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each case. The motions are supported by briefs in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeals are frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of each brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file responses to counsel=s briefs. Responses have been filed. In each case, appellant has filed a response arguing that the trial court erred by entering a nunc pro tunc order correcting the degree of his possession offense stated in the order deferring adjudication of guilt from a state jail felony to a third degree felony. Appellant also asserts that his due process rights were violated and that his trial counsel
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9140.html[8/20/2013 7:31:02 PM]

allowed him to enter guilty pleas while two warrants were outstanding. Appellant further argues that he does not Asee any credits issued on any of [his] time sheets@ for time he contends that he has served. The record before this court does not support appellant=s contentions. Appellant cannot raise this collateral attack on the order deferring the adjudication of guilt in a direct appeal from the judgment adjudicating his guilt. Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Moreover, we note that the order nunc pro tunc was properly entered. All of appellant=s contentions have been considered, and each is overruled. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeals are without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.). The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed. PER CURIAM September 18, 2008 Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9140.html[8/20/2013 7:31:02 PM]

Download 9140.pdf